On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:40:22PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 09:54:44PM +0000, sin wrote: > > Hm yes, you are right, the FIFO code never reaps children. We could > > probably use the double fork trick + killing the parent to force it to > > be reaped by the original process (the parent of the FIFO code). > > Double forking would take care of the spawned process. But you'd still be > forced to boot with the file system mounted read-write. I don't know if > that's the way to go. I think Arch wants you to boot with a read-writable > root fs nowadays, but I don't know what the benefit should be. Even more > so since you need to remount it read-only during system initialisation > anyway before checking it.
I've fixed the issues you mentioned except the case when rootfs is mounted as ro. How would you tackle that? I am considering setting up a SIGHUP handler in init and then sending that signal at the end of the boot process when we are basically ready. What do you think? Cheers, sin
